On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
>
> First of all, you are free to view the bug page with the ordering you
> prefer. Try using "ordering=standard":
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=sponsorship-requests;ordering=standard
Thanks for the hint. Reverting to standard view is, for me, a huge
improvement. Suddenly the two packages I may care about are at the
top: roundup and imagemagick with targeted fixes for this release, and
that's exactly what I want.
> The goal of the for-wheezy and not-for-wheezy usertags is to get the
> maintainer to explicitly state her intent.
As a sponsor, I don't care about the sponsoree's intent. If something
looks worthwhile, I will help the sponsoree get it to a point where it
is ready, and that will happen as a discussion in the bug log.
> The goal of the
> (not-)fit-for-wheezy usertags is mainly to allow for reviews by people
> who will not sponsor the package themselves (which experienced DMs and
> some DDs sometimes do).
I don't think we need anyone to do this. The release criteria are set
in stone. Either the package satisfies those criteria, or it doesn't,
and the person potentially sponsoring it will notice this, and if it
isn't up to par, will communicate with the sponsoree to get it fixed
up.
> At that time, there was only positive feedback. You are indeed the
> first person to express reservations.
I suppose I was not sufficiently engaged with -mentors at that point
and entirely missed this discussion; being busy with real life anyway.
> On the other hand there is some overhead inherent to changing how
> things work: if you want to introduce the usertags itp, rc, qa, and
> nmu, it will take some time before people actually use them. I would
> tend to defer that until after the release, when we will retire
> (not-)(fit-)for-wheezy any way.
That seems reasonable.
Best wishes,
Mike